The consultative examination in the Social Security disability determination process is a means by which decision-makers obtain additional evidence for claimants' records in order to aid in deciding whether a claimant is disabled. Research has demonstrated that the presence of a consultative examination in a claimant's record lowers the odds of application approval; however, current research is lacking in understanding why. Psychologists play a significant role as consultative examiners in cases in which claimants are alleging mental impairment, and thus, may be contributing to the problem. In addition, the bodies that govern psychologists' involvement in this process demonstrate discrepancies, which may further be effecting the overall quality of CE's. Seven attorneys with experience representing Social Security disability claimants were interviewed to gather information on attorneys' perspectives of this process. Using a modified grounded theory approach for qualitative data, 18 themes emerged that were grouped into three overarching categories, including aspects of CE's themselves, the difficult construct of mental illness, and common trends within the SSA. Recommendations for policymakers, psychologists, and attorneys are offered with these results in mind.